Killarney, Zimmerman did not invoke the "Stand your ground" law in his defence. He claimed simple self defence. However, he is not one of the good guys Jay, but a pathetic, inadequate misfit who killed someone in the course of indulging his vigilante/wannabe cop fantasies. The most perceptive comment to come out of the trial was Trayvon's description of him as a "creepy ass cracker." He should be held accountable for unlawful killing of some kind. If Florida law Condones his behaviour it is shameful and disgracefully unjust.

Killarney, Zimmerman did not invoke the "Stand your ground" law in his defence. He claimed simple self defence. The judge did instruct the jury he had no duty to retreat. However, he is not one of the good guys Jay, but a pathetic, inadequate misfit who killed someone in the course of indulging his vigilante/wannabe cop fantasies. The most perceptive comment to come out of the trial was Trayvon's description of him as a "creepy ass cracker." He should be held accountable for unlawful killing of some kind. If Florida law condones his behaviour it is shameful and disgracefully unjust.

Sean,
By all accounts George Zimmerman was a good, kind, civic minded person who would go out of his way to help others, not one person who'd had anything to do with him has described him as you do.
Sean this is the age of truth, when NBC doctored the 9-11 recordings to make Zimmerman sound "Racist", when the newspapers and wire services photoshopped his image to make his brown skin look White they should have known that within hours the deception would have been all over the internet.
The U.S media are full of gullible people like you and worse, people who manipulate stories to fit an agenda.
The very presence of Al Sharpton in the pro Trayvon milieu immediately set the tone for the subsequent hill of lies and ham fisted attempts to set Zimmerman up for a fall.
Al Sharpton is a crook, he's a race baiting fraud, if any White person behaved as abominably as he does they'd be in jail on civil rights charges:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816884/posts

I am completely confused as to what is Marjorie Cohn's logic is in this article. She seems to be against racism, but then she approves of racism.

Marjorie seems to be implying that Zimmerman was a racist who killed a black man, and his acquittal by an all white jury proves that white people are racist. But if Marjorie is really implying that the white jury found Zimmeran innocent because he only shot a black, then that is a racist assumption against the white jury.

Marjorie further confounds her logic by pointing out that the judge ruled that any mention of "race" could not be used in the trial. Isn't that what every so called 'anti racist" would applaud? Apparently not Marjorie. Like so many "anti racists", race may not be mentioned when it does not benefit her worldview, and it may be mentioned when it does.

The victim who was shot was a racist himself who called Zimmerman 'a cracker". This equates with a white person calling a black "a neegger." But naturally, Marjorie ignores that. Minorities get a free pass from Marjorie on their own racism.

What probably happened, is that Zimmerman got fed up of the outright and blatant acts of criminal behaviour committed by blacks everywhere in the USA, and he did something about it. The white jury, who are the ones most affected by black racism and black criminal behaviour directed at them, found one of their protectors innocent to send a message to the black racists, that they could use the law to shoot back.

Jay of Melbourne. You are correct when noting that the NBC 'doctored' (cherry picked) the 9-11 recording of Zimmerman. No mention of colour was made by Zimmerman until asked by the 9-11 responder. His initial description was not based on 'race/colour'. In much the same way that 'Islam' was not a motive in th British soldiers murder, according to ABC, BBC and SBS.
It would appear that the author forensically gathers her 'facts' from the left wing media and draws her own preconceived conclusions based on this ' evidence'.
As noted by Hasbeen "What a disgusting bit of tripe for a law professor to commit to paper, or the net."

This case, along with countless others (O.J.Simpson, etc), proves beyond all doubt that the U.S.A. must not be allowed to gain control of the world.

American democracy has been bastardized, the American justice system is a sick joke, the American political system is run by the corporations and AIPAC, the American President is genocidal and a warmongering psycho, and America is faced with worn-out infrastructure plus there is widespread poverty and homelessness and lawlessness.

Why is Australia a worshiper of such a country?